Generally no. They know what type of cases but not the specifics unless they have been invloved at an earlier stage. The practice varies from case to case and from court to court. However, even if they know the cases in advance this does not affect their impartiality.

The reason I was asking was we were called as witnesses for a Outdoor Access Code case and sat around for 2 hrs before being told come back at a later date as this case will require more time!! Surely if the Sheriff had known before hand what was involved proper time could of been set aside. Considering the complexities of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003

Just seems to me to be a very inefficient way to run things and of course Lawyers are the only people making money out of it.

I'm sure if the Lawyers were only being paid when their case was being "heard" the system would become a bit more organised .

I can understand how many people might think the system is inefficient, delays like this happen all the time with cases. However although not ideal, the reality of the situation is that most courts and sheriffs have a fairly full to overflowing workload. If every case were to be examined beforehand by the sheriff then fewer cases would get through the system quickly resulting in an even bigger back-load. Less cases are affected in the way yours has been than would be with the alternative. It's an unfortunate reality but a necessary one for the very reason you feel it is at fault - efficiency. It's more efficient with the existing one than otherwise. I completely understand your frustration though, as I've been involved in cases that have been delayed sometimes up to three times in similar circumstances.